Do y'all actually hate this guy?

Do y'all actually hate this guy?

While his prose is sometimes below average, I think he's a pretty talented writer with a masterful grasp of characterization and continuity. His craft is much more sophisticated than that of his genre fiction peers, and despite his blunders his work is pretty damn impressive.

Who is that cutie pie? I would love to put her beard in my special place, if you know what i mean.


Jokes aside: GRR Martin is a very original writer for his genre. He essentially set in motion a revolution on how we understand fantasy worlds and in using them to reveal deep human tensions and motivations, making us examine the rich psychology of his characters in order to better understand his world. He is essentially manipulating us into examining our reasons, through cruelty, cynicism and an exhuberant imagination.

>continuity
disgusting. lots of us hate Gass, so yes, we hate this hack of all hacks. "good at writing genre fiction" equals "wipes his ass neatly after he shits on my mother's grave"
you've wasted years of your valueless life reading him.

>blunders
Which ones?

I don't see this at all, i think everything he writes about are already well established fantasy tropes, a lot is directly taken from real historical events, and his characters are 2 dimentional at best.

>rich psychology

...such as?

The characters are boring and develop in an incredibly slow pace. The narrator spews the same trite traits of them over and over again until reading becomes an annoying chore.

It's just rudimentary psychology with little to no philosophical meaning behind it.

>genre fiction is bad
>why user? It can be pretty deep too
>it's just bad.

That's the imaginary conversation i have with myself every time i read about how genre fiction is just some sort of inferior literature. Some people just don't even dare to examine either why they believe what they believe or the reasons and intentions behind some work of art, even if mediocre and simple.

Tyrion is a pretty complex guy for instance. So was Ned Stark, Cersei Lannister, Jorah Mormont and many more.

Not everyone though, i may grant you that. Sansa for instance is just a doorknob.

He makes some poor decisions in narration and plot, but covers his tracks amazingly well. He completely shot himself in the foot with the entire Daenerys storyline after she leaves Qarth, but managed to handle it so gracefully that most audiences won't realize how horribly he fucked up.

If anybody isn't aware, GRRM planned a 5-10 year time skip before he realized that was fucking stupid. Daenerys overthrows the slave cities of Ghiscar way, way too early, because he initially planned to cut to her, years later, as a seasoned but troubled ruler with a public who has since turned against her.

Similarly, GRRM was forced to come up with largely pointless plotlines for both Jon and Arya, as both of them were clearly supposed to be an experienced leader and assassin after the time gap.

That happens when you have to calibrate so many storylines, characters, intrigues, geopolitics, lore and all of that so that your story still has some kind of internal consistency, even when sacrificing formal aspects of the work. Yes, sometimes the plot is just weak or moronic, but the project of game of thrones is larger than just that. It's far from being a masterpiece though...

Have you read his books? I think he does a great job of creating characters with very complex motivations that often cannot be reconciled. It's a really cool look at interpersonal politics and the ways in which an action which seems completely justifiable (especially to those in the echo zone of absolute power) can have dire consequences. See, everything Robb Stark ever did, or Daenerys' efforts to liberate Ghiscar.

The biggest conflict within ASOIAF if romanticism versus reality. The series is chock full of characters completely who are engrossed in the folly and tradition, but unable to actually carry out the duties respected of them. There are very few "true knights", and characters who try to emulate the mythic successes of their ancestors are often crushed by modern realpolitik. Balon Greyjoy, Robb Stark, Jon Snow, Daenerys Targaryen, and obviously Ned Stark are all their own sort of idealist who try, but fail, to be heroic in a world which always rewards cunning over valor or honor. Adherence to virtue hamstrings many of our heroes.

While Ser Barristan is considered to be one of the most noble and formidable men alive, his position within the politics of these books is trivial. While a writer like Tolkein would paint him as a Carlyle-esque hero who changes the course of world history in his service to Daenerys, by being only brave and only loyal and only strong he finds himself outsmarted helplessly by far more politically capable conspirators in both King's Landing and Meereen. Despite the tournaments and banquets, power in both Westeros and Essos is held by those smart enough to conceal it.

In Plutarch's life of Antony, Caesar makes a quip that perfectly applies to the politics of ASOIAF: "It is not the long-haired and well-fed men I fear, but instead the pale and hungry looking." Because the vast majority of fantasy literature is based on mythology and Tolkein rather than upon history, GRRM is pretty boldly subverting his genre. I really believe that ASOIAF is a step above most other fantasy literature, and despite not being high art, Martin is still a very accomplished writer who's great at crafting plots.

Gr8 B8 M8

No but seriously, his character flooding is awful, many chapters don't have a point and just ramble on about nothing for pages and pages and pages. You can count the interesting characters on one hand. Jaime. There you go.

The day I was meme'd by Veeky Forums

[s]everyday man, everyday[/s]

I tried to read this book but I couldn't make it past the prologue because it was just badly written. Is it really worth truging through the crummy prose and dialogue? especially if I've already seen the show and know what's gonna happen anyway?

Nah, Sansa is a great character. Her own struggle of dealing with the clash of romance versus reality (symbolically represented by her memory of an imaginary kiss by the Hound) is pretty interesting to watch. When she is given power in the first book, via influence over Joffrey, she horribly misuses it because she does not yet realize that not all kings behave as a king should.

Her slow realization of the world's absurdism, forced upon her violently by the deaths of the people she loves, is pretty cool when juxtaposed against her own puberty. She has her first period just as word comes of Stannis' impending invasion, which will surely bring excesses of rape and violence.

If she was written by Faulkner instead of Martin she'd be lauded as a really wonderful depiction of adolescence.

>The characters are boring and develop in an incredibly slow pace.

Literally the same could be said about the Brothers Karamazov or Moby Dick.

I feel sometimes, though, that Martin's world is somehow grimmer than history. I suppose it's a "truth is stranger than fiction" thing, but our own world actually does have characters who were powerful and strong and virtuous and noble and changed the world as a result. A lot of them were during the Middle Ages, too. There doesn't seem to be any real formidable character in Martin's work who's truly virtuous, which I actually find unrealistic. Not everyone mighty is an ass.

Plus I'm still smarting from that comment he made about Aragorn. I'm going to assume it was made as a joke, because if it wasn't he doesn't understand LOTR at all.

Curious, what did you find so badly written about it?

If you read for aesthetic value alone it probably won't be your cup of tea, unless you're a big fan of the Victorian romanticism GRRM mimics with his prose.

Interesting. I will try to read her character in that way, next time i see the show.

It actually makes a lot of sense when you consider her familiar environment: lots of love and appreciation for each other and an education based on strong moral principles such as loyalty and honor above cunning or opportunism.

Well, ASOIAF is full of heroic characters. Most obvious are Brienne, Robb, Jon Snow, and Daenerys. All of these characters behave almost entirely out of virtue, to the degree that they all suffer for it.

You're right that ASOIAF is almost edgy in its darkness, but medieval war was fucking nasty. There are hundreds of reports of individuals as ruthless Walder Frey, but most of them are remembered pretty fondly because their success set the narrative of hindsight. Just look at William I of England or Edward the Black Prince, both violent war criminals whose legacy is neutral at worst. Martin, by giving us a personal look at cruelty, avoids the sanitation of
the ages.

And how did Martin misunderstand Tolkein? I think his criticism is pretty valid, although he ought to recognize that Tolkein was trying to create a mythological narrative rather than anything realistic. I'm absolutely certain he realized the ways in which his characters and plot were idealized.

It's been a while, but I remember the characters all talked the same, and I thought it was dumb that GRRM writes "ser" instead of "sir" like it's supposed to be more fantastic that way.

Like I said, I think he wasn't being quite serious. Here's the quote:

>Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?

>In real life, real-life kings had real-life problems to deal with. Just being a good guy was not the answer. You had to make hard, hard decisions. Sometimes what seemed to be a good decision turned around and bit you in the ass; it was the law of unintended consequences. I've tried to get at some of these in my books. My people who are trying to rule don't have an easy time of it. Just having good intentions doesn't make you a wise king.

I feel like this sort of misses the entire point of The Lord of the Rings. It's not just about an 'idealized' narrative, it's the way in which LOTR concerns itself hugely with the idea of Providence, of the will of God.

For me the difference between genre fiction and literary fiction lies in the difference of what's the book's purpose and if it achieves it. If it's a book made to just tell an interesting story and does it with mediocre plot and prose, it's genre fiction for me. If it's a book that challenger the reader to find a "true" meaning or the hidden nuances or can make a reader challenge his own views on something in a way that deeply affects their way of thinking, then it's literary fiction.

Ex: 2001: A Space Odyssey raises certain discussion about AIs and what is in for mankind in the future, but does so in a way that's just very common and the message is just like reading Clarke saying "but what is in store for mankind?".
Brothers Karamazov makes you question about God, religion and morality without seeming like it's raising those questions for you. You yourself find the meaning and decide your point of view on it as you read. A bolder example would be one of Borges's short stories. They're, on the surface, just entertainment. But they're so marvelously written and have such depth that you can take life-changing epiphanies and messages out of them.

Eh I like him but his writing can be pretty bad. I found two of his books in the middle really fucking boring, you had all this hype from the first two books then it really just fizzled out and nothing happened for two or three books but talking and boredom.

Some of his sex scenes are really bad, people think the show is bad but the books are just pure autistic sonic the hedgehog fanatic tier.
That whole paragraph about Danny taking a shit was just disgusting and unnecessary.

Taken out of context, though, it's great. I would read a whole book about Danerys having explosive diarrhea.

>You can count the interesting characters on one hand. Jaime
I don't understand why people keep saying this. How is he more interesting than, say, Tyrion, Theon, Cersei, Varys, Davos, Brienne, or Catelyn?

That's actually a great justification for the differenciation between literary fiction and genre fiction.

Still, it's undeniable that there are great works of literary art written in, let's say, the science fiction genre.

I don't hate him. I think he's good but often overrated. He lost control of his story after book 3. (For context, my favorite fantasy authors are Roger Zelazny and Jeff Noon.)

His story may have gone off the rails but I personally think the fourth book is his best minus the ironborn stuff.

This is actually a valid point, but the people who can't come up reasons why genre is "bad" are only agreeing with other anons to feel sophisticated. The real fact of the matter is, genre isn't necessarily "bad" so much as artless. Genre is typically superficial and for entertainment, therefore there's nothing clever or meaningful about, it doesn't actually make you THINK. Genre is also often goofy and clichéd as fuck, not to mention full of really broad archetypes. Archetypes are NOT people. That's one of the best things about literary fiction, they can avoid archetypes but still manage to make their not just 3 dimensional but 4 dimensional.

iirc initially the whole thing was supposed to be three books long, so the first couple seem properly paced but then when he decided to stretch it to (n+1) books literally all subplots went off in random directions.

We actually agree.

There are many cases of genre fiction works that can make you think and give you aesthetic pleasure of the deepest kind. It's just that, as you quite lucidly said, it isn't the norm. Good works of genre fiction are the exception.

For me at least then you understand the boundaries. Fiction IS fiction, genre or not. There's plenty of equally terrible regular fiction out there, creating a story that accurately mimics and interprets life is impossible. What you really just have to convince the reader that what they are reading is 'genuine'-ish. Which becomes particularly hard when it comes to something that is set in another time or in fantasy or whatever UNLESS the reader already realizes that it's all bullshit anyways, fiction or genre fiction alike.

The real answer is that quality writing is quality writing, the only difference is that people think if it's a genre that is not set in 'reality' then it is less genuine than a FICTIONAL STORY set in 'reality'. Even when both are just constructs of the writers prose that are more or less equally fictitious.

There's a big difference between Wolfe and Herbert, on one side, and Clarke and Asimov on the other.

Wolfe and Herbert make a point out of delivering what they want to say in a very aesthetically interesting way even on a sentence-to-sentence basis. Their command of the english language and ways it can express things is far greater (imho) than the skill level of Asimov and Clarke, who simply use prose in a straightforward way to get their creative ideas across.

To make it short Wolfe and Herbert can write about any topic in whatever genre they want and I'd likely enjoy it the same way, but I can't say the same about most of the scifi/fantasy genre writers.

It's branding. Fantasy is pretty repetitive, and AGOT's mid-90s provenance was the worst of that. He tried to set himself apart from other writers through idiosyncratic spelling and vocabulary.

Ironically, his decision to use off-kilter character names (Alys, Eddard, etc) became standard operating procedure for 2000s fantasy. It's exceptionally common in video games these days.

He's not flat.

>Martin's world is somehow grimmer than history

You're just getting memed by an uncritical reading of history. To a man, any great leader is by definition a person who would fellate a rotting corpse for more power.

I'm not only talking about kings and generals. Martin's world has no saints, for example.

But Theon is?

Wasn't Ned Stark pretty saintlike? At least, I always saw him as GRRM's criticism of what would happen to any other fantasy hero IRL.

If not him, how would you answer the previously-raised questions of Brienne or Jon Snow?

Ned was an honorably, chivalric knightly figure. He abided by the rules of honor and decorum, but I would not call him a saint. I think more about figures like Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Benedict, Catherine of Siena, the Venerable Bede, Anselm of Canterbury, and so forth.

Actually, in general there's not a lot of religion in ASOIAF, which seems strange to me in a story that's both a recreation of medieval history and also a fantasy world in which magic and amazing creatures are very real. The most we really see of religion is the Sparrows, but that's nothing compared to the omnipresence of religion and spirituality in our world's Middle Ages. Most major characters are atheists, which I suppose is a reflection of Martin's own atheism.

You're not wrong, but you make the mistake of being too conscious of the reader.

I've always been in the "Read what you enjoy, not what others say you're supposed to enjoy" camp.

At the end of the day, how you spend your time is wholly yours. Any arrogant shit stain with the temerity to tell you otherwise should consume a bad of severed raw, severed cocks as penance for their incorrigible level of smugness.

A book should do one of two things.
A) Entertain you.
B) Educate you.
If it succeeds in doing one or the other, then it's done it's job. Doubly so if it accomplishes both.

Being a literary patrician such as myself mere books cannot educate me anymore for I know all and the mere notion of "entertaintment" in books is one I for one very much scoffs at. Your statement that books should do either of two things is consequently wrong.

*darts into the shadows*
*a faint snickering is heard*

I liked Dying of the Light, A Game of Thrones and A Clash of Kings, but everything else is a meh as fuck

...

>this /r/books tier banter

you got him good work

>>Ruling is hard. This was maybe my answer to Tolkien, whom, as much as I admire him, I do quibble with. Lord of the Rings had a very medieval philosophy: that if the king was a good man, the land would prosper. We look at real history and it's not that simple. Tolkien can say that Aragorn became king and reigned for a hundred years, and he was wise and good. But Tolkien doesn't ask the question: What was Aragorn's tax policy? Did he maintain a standing army? What did he do in times of flood and famine? And what about all these orcs? By the end of the war, Sauron is gone but all of the orcs aren't gone – they're in the mountains. Did Aragorn pursue a policy of systematic genocide and kill them? Even the little baby orcs, in their little orc cradles?


It's really FUCKING funny that he should say this, given that his world is completely and utterly missing vital parts of real social order.

The most glaring example being that he uses, in the first chapter of the first book, the example of a nobleman executing a criminal as an example of "doing ones own dirty work". This, in the context of medieval society, is completely fucking ridiculous. Laws can only be made an executed by Kings and their appointed agents (sherrifs, constables, judges etc.). There is absolutely no functioning legal or law enforcement system in GoT, just some handwaving about "the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword" (by the way the reason this is also unrealistic in any context is that judges were busy bureaucrats, without the time to go around beheading people out in the middle of fields somewhere, they sat in offices resolving disputed about stolen cows and adultery most of their days). If you give nobility legal authority they will just go around murdering people to suit their greed or political goals without any thought for the law.

Another example is his complete misunderstanding of the feudal system and manorial system, his idea of 'lordship' is completely fucking abstract and tied to some familial heritage bullshit, in reality it was tied to the land you owned (for example, you wouldnt be "Lord Stark of Winterfell" you'd just be "Duke of the North/Winterfell", and the people that swear fealty to you would do so because you are lord of a place not of a family. And on top of that, why the fuck is everyone just "Lord Soandso"? In reality, the feudal system necessitates a tiered distribution of authority. Where are the Barons and Counts and Dukes and such? What about Earls and Bishoprics? What about chartered city burghs, with mayors and such?

Add to this his misunderstanding of scale (the Starks ruled the North for 8,000 years? Really? From Charlemagne to Columbus was 450 years).

Maybe I'm just an autistic amateur Veeky Forumstorian, but his world is completely fucking flat and lacks the depth that made actual medieval societies so damn interesting. Every time I hear someone say "his prose is shit but his world is amazing" I just laugh.

To be fair, the part with Ned Stark doing the execution was is own personal style. You don't see a Lannister doing that shit, they just tell Illyn Payne to go to town.

Ok, the 8000 years bit is insane.

>Stuff about how dukedom is passed on
I don't give a fuck about GoT but it's a fantasy world dude.

>8000 years
kek yeah that's stupid.
What is this about fantasy shit where humans just "appear" same as they always were on any random fucking "fantasy" planet? This is some pre-1900's "human shape is the best shape so all aliens will look like humans" bullshit that fantasy authors never seemed to escape. What happened to the fantasy shit set on planets where homonid isn't the default form? Fuck your anthrocentric bullshit.

about that, I always thought the 8000 years they ladle out every time they have to have a date is just a representation of the speaker's ignorance of his own history. It doesn't seem so far off to me that a peasant in the Middle Ages would think that the Kings of a certain dynasty have been ruling since Jesus or something. IThe thousands of years mean "a long time".


But yes, I thought that the conflict in GoT were bad.

>Who Will Win? Team Lion or Team Wolf? (CLICK HERE FOR TEAM WOLF)
Every army has its standard and its gimmicky castle and king.

>>Who Will Win? Team Lion or Team Wolf? (CLICK HERE FOR TEAM WOLF)

When you learn that GRRM is a huge NFL fan everything begins to make sense.

But there are degrees. Of course GRRM still simplifies many things a bit, and makes other things larger than life - he's still writing for a mass audience - but he introduces to the fantasy genre is psychological realism, moral ambiguity and an appreciation (not complete, but significant) of the complexities of rulership and power, economic factors and so on.

I'm no massive fan, but credit where it's due.

I think this is pretty pertinent. I get the feeling that GRRM isn't very interested in religion and I think that shows through. There's a broad conflict between the vaguely Medieval Christian-analogue New Gods and the pagan Old ones. The Red Priests' religion is the most interesting because in a lot of ways it seems inspired by the radicalism (and creepiness) of early Christianity, but it's all done in very broad strokes and not explored much. I think there are some missed opportunities.

He's a huge fan of everything he likes tbqhwy

...

Those were written in the 19th century for 19th century sensibilities and language standards.
It seems to me that writing the way GRRM writes for the 21st century relies on the low bar of prose and philosophy in fiction. His only advantage (and it's a big one) is his deep enrapturement his own world and characters.

From the perspective of 21st century fiction, with its post-modernism and fascination with pseudo-psychology and the subversion of morals, he is incredibly good, but from the perspective of the entirety of literature as an art? He's a hack far removed from the heights of human expression.

I think this is an imaginary distinction, though.

GRRM has discussed this in interviews. He says that Westeros is not meant to be an accurate depiction of medieval Britain, and that his decision to omit the importance of faith was a way for modern-day audiences to better connect to the characters.

I think it's reasonable given the extremely decentralized nature of Westerosi government. The kingdom of the iron throne is mostly ceremonial -- there's no centralized system of tax collection. Instead, the lords paramount swear fealty to the king mostly out of tradition, and have their loyalty cemented through marriage bonds and gifts.

I agree that the omission of notaries, judges, and other legal administrators is bothersome, but all of their duties are carried out by maesters.

The series is also chock full of minor lords, but Martin unwisely chooses to just label them as "lords paramount", "high lords", and "lords". In addition, landed knights are the equivalent of small barons.

The 8,000 years stuff is even mocked within the books. That's ancestral mythmaking, comparable to 15th century Scots who believed themselves to be a lost tribe of Egyptians. One of the Maesters admits that they know absolutely nothing about what happened more than a thousand years ago.

Eh you gotta remember magic is a legitimate part of the universe. Part of the reason Ned got killed (and cause the downfall of his house) is because he left the protection of the tree and Winterfell. It's likely that such protection could ensure such extended protection for 8000 years.